Ray Disarray and Fusion Confusion

Near the start of the  20th century, physicists discovered many different kinds of rays: cathode rays, alpha rays, beta rays, proton beams, neutron radiation, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. The first five are actually particle beams. Cathode and beta rays are electrons, proton beams are hydrogen nuclei, and alpha rays are helium nuclei.

Physics terminology can be confusing.

You may think of “radiation” as massless energy—radio waves, infrared heat, light waves, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. However, physicists define radiation more broadly as energy that moves from one place to another. This can mean either waves, or matter in the form of particles.

Some physicists speculate that light rays could have a tiny, tiny bit of mass. Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc², says energy is matter, and matter is energy. 

In 1903, Ernest Rutherford at McGill University found that highly penetrating radiation from an unknown source was passing through metal walls as much as a centimetre thick, and ionizing the gas inside. This radiation was similar to the gamma radiation emitted by radioactive rocks. Rutherford’s colleague Arthur Stewart Eve noted that if it came from rocks, it should decline with altitude in space—but it did not. 

In 1925, the physicist Robert Millikan coined the term “cosmic rays.” In his paper, “High Frequency Rays of Cosmic Origin,” Millikan mentioned the work of Rutherford and Eve. He assumed that “cosmic radiation” was composed of gamma rays from outer space. However, scientists now know that only a tiny proportion of cosmic radiation is massless energy. Most (around 99%) is high-energy protons, entering our solar system from other parts of the galaxy.

The term “cosmic radiation” is rather confusing. Equally confusing is “fusion.” 

Most people would define fusion as “the merger of two separate entities into one.” But physicists use the term narrowly. They apply it only to the positively charged nuclei of atoms. Because positively charged nuclei repel each other; considerable energy is needed to overcome this mutual repulsion.

The physicists’ definition limits fusion to the hot central cores of stars, or to high-energy physics experiments. However, fusion-like mergers that involve sub-atomic particles (electrons and neutrons) regularly take place here on Earth. 

The most abundant naturally occurring radioactive isotope, potassium-40, can decay by absorbing an electron into its nucleus and transforming into argon-40.  

Neutron absorption is another fusion-like reaction. When elements in the atmosphere or land surface are struck by the high-energy protons in cosmic radiation, their nuclei can break up and expel free neutrons. Other elements can capture these neutrons and become radioactive. Chlorine-36 is an example. Small amounts are produced when the nucleus of chlorine-35, a stable form of this element, absorbs a free neutron.

In this broader sense, fusion happens regularly (albeit infrequently) at the ordinary temperatures found here on Earth: cold fusion.

One of the reviews of my book, “The Sun Within,” has the following:

The author’s core theory is highly speculative and at odds with the consensus of physicists—it draws on decades-old and very controversial claims about cold fusion (now called “low-energy nuclear reactions”) with only a few wisps of supporting data…”

Enough physics already, what about biology? 

Biological cold fusion could involve the simultaneous capture of an electron and a proton. Both are mobile in cells through mechanisms such as “proton hopping” and “electron transport chains.” By coupling these mechanisms, the electron could neutralize the positive charge of the proton. Both could be absorbed into the nucleus together, acting like a virtual neutron. 

Proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET) occurs commonly in biochemical reactions, when an electron and a proton move at the same time between molecules. Could PCET trigger nuclear reactions as well as chemical reactions? 

While such biological cold fusion is admittedly “speculative,” and at odds with the consensus of physicists, it may be time for physicists and biologists to consider this more seriously. Our cells may be livelier than we think!